Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch

[Ingo Molnar]

* Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

> ...
> > [the only remaining source of 'latency uncertainty' is the small
> > asynchronous hardirq stub that would still remain. This has an effect
> > that can be compared to e.g. cache effects and it cannot become unbound
> > unless the CPU is bombarded with a very high number of interrupts.]
> 
> Well, I do not follow you I guess.
> 
> With large-enough number of hardirqs you do no progress at all.
> 
> Even if only "sane" number of irqs, if they all decide to hit within
> one getpid(), this getpid is going to take quite long....

yes, all of this assumes some _minimal_ sanity of the hardware
environment. We do detect interrupt storms and turn those IRQ sources
off, but there's no (sane) way to avoid interrupt storms from
driver-handled IRQ sources.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/